5 ms·

replace "product a business can package and sell" with "serves the most users" and the point still stands. Serving the most users (ie. NOT power users) is usua

replace "product a business can package and sell" with "serves the most users" and the point still stands. Serving the most users (ie. NOT power users) is usually the best economic decision as well.

TeMPOraL 6y ago
Serving or entrapping them? The end goal of any piece of software that wants to deliver actual value is to turn its user into a power user. Power users aren't born, they're made - made through repetitive use. Software that doesn't give a path for the user to grow and become more proficient is software that literally wastes their limited time they have on this planet. As usual, what's the best economic decision and what's actually good are aligned here only so much that you won't get laughed out of the room for proposing they're the same. But not much more than that.
- devmunchies 6y ago
  > made through repetitive use now who's entrapping who? you think its practical for every piece of software to be a massive time sink? > software that literally wastes their limited time they have on this planet. There's a saying "linux is only free if you don't value your time", now you're saying that software that takes MORE time commitment saves you time? C'mon, take off your engineering hat for a second.
  - TeMPOraL 6y ago
    I'm saying that: 1) Actual value to people is mostly created in software that's being used repeatedly. The tools people use for work, to run their errands, and to communicate. 2) For any tool that's used repeatedly, if there's no path for the user to grow ever more proficient and efficient in using it, the tool is wasting that user's time. > now you're saying that software that takes MORE time commitment saves you time? No, I'm saying that less time spent on using software to accomplish unit of value is better. For software used repeatedly, this is achieved by learning to use the software better - and that can only happen if the software offers room to grow, and isn't just a Fisher-Price toy.
    - ZephyrBlu 6y ago
      You are assuming there is zero opportunity cost in learning to use the software better. Perhaps further increasing my efficiency with this software is not as impactful as spending my time on something else. This also assumes that the time you invest in learning the software will be offset by productivity gains, which seems extremely unlikely for the majority of users assuming the software is non-trivial. There is also risk associated with learning the software. What if you begin to learn it and then for some reason you stop using it? You've just wasted a whole lot of time.
      - TeMPOraL 6y ago
        All three of your points are covered by my base assumption: software used repeatedly. Any opportunity cost is consumed by the fact you're using this software all the time. For the same reason, productivity gains compound, and there is little risk of switching any time soon (also this is the kind of experience that tends to generalize well).
        ZephyrBlu 6y ago
        Repeatedly != all the time. You can repeatedly use software (I.e. daily, monthly, yearly) for short periods of time or for specific tasks. That doesn't mean you'll be using it all the time though. I think most users fall into this category rather than people who use it "all the time". A lot of the time people just use software to get the job done and aren't engrossed in using it. If I can improve my efficiency/revenue/whatever metric more by leveraging something other than this software, why would I waste my time learning how to use the software better?
        TeMPOraL 6y ago
        > You can repeatedly use software (I.e. daily, monthly, yearly) for short periods of time or for specific tasks. That doesn't mean you'll be using it all the time though. Yes, and perhaps I should've clarified that I meant "repeatedly" as in "couple hours or more a week, on average". With an important caveat that software which is used "for short periods of time or for specific tasks" by some people all too often is also used all the time by other people. E.g. I use Word or Blender for about an hour a month on average, but there are many people who spend eight hours a day, five days a week in front of them. It's bad if you handicap the former for the sake of the latter. > A lot of the time people just use software to get the job done and aren't engrossed in using it. The difference I'm trying to focus on here: if you're using the software once, to do one-off job, there's no point in you investing into learning it. But if you're using the software to do a job done on a regular basis, you'll eventually start looking for ways to spend less time doing that job. It's nice if software offers such ways, and guides you towards them. > If I can improve my efficiency/revenue/whatever metric more by leveraging something other than this software, why would I waste my time learning how to use the software better? Fair. I'm explicitly talking about situations where you can't. You have a job to do, this is the software that lets you get it done. If you can use different software to do it faster, then of course you should use it.
- tsimionescu 6y ago
  That is only true in so far as that piece of software is somebodys livelihood or hobby. In many cases, people have rare uses for a portion of piece of software, so they benfit immensly from it being dumb and easy to use. For example, as a programmer I occasionally need to prepare presentations, in which case I use PowerPoint because that's what the company bought. I use probably less than 1% of what PowerPoint can do, and I wouldnt lose anything at all if I were given a program that did exclusively that 1%. I would in fact gain some productivity by having to browse through fewer options. I have no intention and would gain nothing by becoming a PowerPoint power user.
  - TeMPOraL 6y ago
    > In many cases, people have rare uses for a portion of piece of software, so they benfit immensly from it being dumb and easy to use. One doesn't have to exclude the other. You can present a gradual onramp but make advanced features available and discoverable. > I use probably less than 1% of what PowerPoint can do, and I wouldnt lose anything at all if I were given a program that did exclusively that 1%. That 1% solution is called Google Office Suite :). You obviously don't need PowerPoint much, and your use of it isn't really creating much of value either. Contrast that with people who use PowerPoint for most of their working day. Ignoring for the moment the difficulty of quantifying value of managerial meetings, it would be really bad if Microsoft one day decided to ignore the people who use PowerPoint extensively, for the sake of greater amount of casual users. That's the kind of ass-backwards "economic thinking" I'm complaining about. I get where it comes from - pursuit of growth at all costs. It's a disease in software industry. Instead of great many tools optimized for the needs of diverse audiences, the "servers most users", "best economic decision" mantra is to create lowest-common-denominator toy that can gain userbase fast, and suck out oxygen from the market.
    - tsimionescu 6y ago
      Well, there are two ways to address the problems you're discussing. One is to create an advanced UX that is both comfortable for simplistic use cases but also efficient for advanced use cases. The other approach is to create two or more programs: one for (each) basic use case, that can't be used further, and one that supports the gamut of advanced use cases, with UX optimized for efficiency. The first approach would be ideal, but in my experience it is extremely difficult if not impossible, just because of UX considerations - often times, what is efficient for an expert will look arcane and confusing to a basic user. The second approach is more promising, though it also has its problems of course - most notably, the fact that the advanced program can easily become very difficult for beginners who do need/want to become experts.

replace "product a business can package and sell" with "serves the most users" and the point still stands. Serving the most users (ie. NOT power users) is usually the best economic decision as well.

TeMPOraL 6y ago

Serving or entrapping them? The end goal of any piece of software that wants to deliver actual value is to turn its user into a power user. Power users aren't born, they're made - made through repetitive use. Software that doesn't give a path for the user to grow and become more proficient is software that literally wastes their limited time they have on this planet. As usual, what's the best economic decision and what's actually good are aligned here only so much that you won't get laughed out of the room for proposing they're the same. But not much more than that.

devmunchies 6y ago
> made through repetitive use now who's entrapping who? you think its practical for every piece of software to be a massive time sink? > software that literally wastes their limited time they have on this planet. There's a saying "linux is only free if you don't value your time", now you're saying that software that takes MORE time commitment saves you time? C'mon, take off your engineering hat for a second.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  I'm saying that: 1) Actual value to people is mostly created in software that's being used repeatedly. The tools people use for work, to run their errands, and to communicate. 2) For any tool that's used repeatedly, if there's no path for the user to grow ever more proficient and efficient in using it, the tool is wasting that user's time. > now you're saying that software that takes MORE time commitment saves you time? No, I'm saying that less time spent on using software to accomplish unit of value is better. For software used repeatedly, this is achieved by learning to use the software better - and that can only happen if the software offers room to grow, and isn't just a Fisher-Price toy.
  - ZephyrBlu 6y ago
    You are assuming there is zero opportunity cost in learning to use the software better. Perhaps further increasing my efficiency with this software is not as impactful as spending my time on something else. This also assumes that the time you invest in learning the software will be offset by productivity gains, which seems extremely unlikely for the majority of users assuming the software is non-trivial. There is also risk associated with learning the software. What if you begin to learn it and then for some reason you stop using it? You've just wasted a whole lot of time.
    - TeMPOraL 6y ago
      All three of your points are covered by my base assumption: software used repeatedly. Any opportunity cost is consumed by the fact you're using this software all the time. For the same reason, productivity gains compound, and there is little risk of switching any time soon (also this is the kind of experience that tends to generalize well).
      - ZephyrBlu 6y ago
        Repeatedly != all the time. You can repeatedly use software (I.e. daily, monthly, yearly) for short periods of time or for specific tasks. That doesn't mean you'll be using it all the time though. I think most users fall into this category rather than people who use it "all the time". A lot of the time people just use software to get the job done and aren't engrossed in using it. If I can improve my efficiency/revenue/whatever metric more by leveraging something other than this software, why would I waste my time learning how to use the software better?
        TeMPOraL 6y ago
        > You can repeatedly use software (I.e. daily, monthly, yearly) for short periods of time or for specific tasks. That doesn't mean you'll be using it all the time though. Yes, and perhaps I should've clarified that I meant "repeatedly" as in "couple hours or more a week, on average". With an important caveat that software which is used "for short periods of time or for specific tasks" by some people all too often is also used all the time by other people. E.g. I use Word or Blender for about an hour a month on average, but there are many people who spend eight hours a day, five days a week in front of them. It's bad if you handicap the former for the sake of the latter. > A lot of the time people just use software to get the job done and aren't engrossed in using it. The difference I'm trying to focus on here: if you're using the software once, to do one-off job, there's no point in you investing into learning it. But if you're using the software to do a job done on a regular basis, you'll eventually start looking for ways to spend less time doing that job. It's nice if software offers such ways, and guides you towards them. > If I can improve my efficiency/revenue/whatever metric more by leveraging something other than this software, why would I waste my time learning how to use the software better? Fair. I'm explicitly talking about situations where you can't. You have a job to do, this is the software that lets you get it done. If you can use different software to do it faster, then of course you should use it.
tsimionescu 6y ago
That is only true in so far as that piece of software is somebodys livelihood or hobby. In many cases, people have rare uses for a portion of piece of software, so they benfit immensly from it being dumb and easy to use. For example, as a programmer I occasionally need to prepare presentations, in which case I use PowerPoint because that's what the company bought. I use probably less than 1% of what PowerPoint can do, and I wouldnt lose anything at all if I were given a program that did exclusively that 1%. I would in fact gain some productivity by having to browse through fewer options. I have no intention and would gain nothing by becoming a PowerPoint power user.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  > In many cases, people have rare uses for a portion of piece of software, so they benfit immensly from it being dumb and easy to use. One doesn't have to exclude the other. You can present a gradual onramp but make advanced features available and discoverable. > I use probably less than 1% of what PowerPoint can do, and I wouldnt lose anything at all if I were given a program that did exclusively that 1%. That 1% solution is called Google Office Suite :). You obviously don't need PowerPoint much, and your use of it isn't really creating much of value either. Contrast that with people who use PowerPoint for most of their working day. Ignoring for the moment the difficulty of quantifying value of managerial meetings, it would be really bad if Microsoft one day decided to ignore the people who use PowerPoint extensively, for the sake of greater amount of casual users. That's the kind of ass-backwards "economic thinking" I'm complaining about. I get where it comes from - pursuit of growth at all costs. It's a disease in software industry. Instead of great many tools optimized for the needs of diverse audiences, the "servers most users", "best economic decision" mantra is to create lowest-common-denominator toy that can gain userbase fast, and suck out oxygen from the market.
  - tsimionescu 6y ago
    Well, there are two ways to address the problems you're discussing. One is to create an advanced UX that is both comfortable for simplistic use cases but also efficient for advanced use cases. The other approach is to create two or more programs: one for (each) basic use case, that can't be used further, and one that supports the gamut of advanced use cases, with UX optimized for efficiency. The first approach would be ideal, but in my experience it is extremely difficult if not impossible, just because of UX considerations - often times, what is efficient for an expert will look arcane and confusing to a basic user. The second approach is more promising, though it also has its problems of course - most notably, the fact that the advanced program can easily become very difficult for beginners who do need/want to become experts.